3 ms·

I will never let myself consider $30-40k to be poor, at least in Texas. That's enough money to take care of an average family and still have a very nice Christm

by RegEx 14y ago

I will never let myself consider $30-40k to be poor, at least in Texas. That's enough money to take care of an average family and still have a very nice Christmas. I'm young, in college, and working full time to support my family (which includes my mother and younger siblings) while my mom goes back to school to earn a degree and work somewhere she will be happy. I made what you would consider in the "poor" range this past year and was still able to pay bills in my apartment, pay all my moms bills for the house she rents, blow money on Steam sales, buy myself and my girlfriend used cars, make a mortgage payment for a struggling family member, and a lot more. I'm not poor. I have been not rich, but not poor.

13rules 14y ago
It's all relative. I appreciate your perspective and think that many of us should pause to reflect on where we stand in this world. For example, the poverty line in the U.S. is around $11,000 — that's in the top 13.1% richest people in the world (globalrichlist.com)
- rooshdi 14y ago
  Although we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of personal well-being and life expectancy, we are also one of the poorest nations at consuming the world's resources responsibly. We are currently ranked 7th to last in this regard and our overall HPI is 105th in the world. [1] [1] http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/
ruswick 14y ago
I think one's interpretation of "poor" rests primarily on location. This is for two reasons. First, location determines absolute cost of living, and can effect quality of life. 40k might be above the median, but it barely livable in Manhattan. Location also has a bearing on relative perception of wealth. Someone making 40k in a neighborhood populated with people making 100k will make one feel poor. Ultimately, the word "poor" is too subjective and is interpreted too idiosyncratically, and I try to avoid using it (along with words like "smart" and "good", etc.)
graeme 14y ago
I think we're just having a semantic disagreement. I'd be fine with calling 30,000-40,000 'not rich'. I don't think I'm poor in the sense of poverty. I think Paul Graham meant poor in the sense you're using 'not rich', and I commented to clarify that.

by RegEx 14y ago

13rules 14y ago

It's all relative. I appreciate your perspective and think that many of us should pause to reflect on where we stand in this world. For example, the poverty line in the U.S. is around $11,000 — that's in the top 13.1% richest people in the world (globalrichlist.com)

rooshdi 14y ago
Although we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of personal well-being and life expectancy, we are also one of the poorest nations at consuming the world's resources responsibly. We are currently ranked 7th to last in this regard and our overall HPI is 105th in the world. [1] [1] http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/

ruswick 14y ago

I think one's interpretation of "poor" rests primarily on location. This is for two reasons. First, location determines absolute cost of living, and can effect quality of life. 40k might be above the median, but it barely livable in Manhattan. Location also has a bearing on relative perception of wealth. Someone making 40k in a neighborhood populated with people making 100k will make one feel poor. Ultimately, the word "poor" is too subjective and is interpreted too idiosyncratically, and I try to avoid using it (along with words like "smart" and "good", etc.)

graeme 14y ago

I think we're just having a semantic disagreement. I'd be fine with calling 30,000-40,000 'not rich'. I don't think I'm poor in the sense of poverty. I think Paul Graham meant poor in the sense you're using 'not rich', and I commented to clarify that.